45
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 4:
Line 4: + + Line 9:
Line 11: +
no edit summary
:: And a scientist with one PhD relevant to the subject is "more qualified" than one with two unrelated ones. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 16:44, 25 January 2008 (EST)
:: And a scientist with one PhD relevant to the subject is "more qualified" than one with two unrelated ones. [[User:Barikada|Barikada]] 16:44, 25 January 2008 (EST)
::: True, but what does that have to do with this discussion? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:55, 26 January 2008 (EST)
::: True, but what does that have to do with this discussion? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:55, 26 January 2008 (EST)
You're just replacing their genius bias with your own. Richard Dawkins has been a leader in the field of biology for over 30 years, since ''The Selfish Gene'' was published I can't find more than a couple publications by Jonathan Wells. You're trying to replace someone with decades of respected scholarship who happens to believe differently from you with someone with practically no academic notoriety who happens to agree with you. I don't know why you think that fighting bias with blatant bias is going to solve anything. I think liberal bias is bad enough, but you can't fight fire with flamethrowers. [[User:RWest|RWest]] 13:42, 8 February 2008 (EST)
== New bias? ==
== New bias? ==
--[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 12:49, 6 January 2008 (EST)
--[[User:JBuscombe|JBuscombe]] 12:49, 6 January 2008 (EST)
:See [[Conservapedia terms]] --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 16:26, 6 January 2008 (EST)
:See [[Conservapedia terms]] --[[User:Crocoite|Crocoite]] 16:26, 6 January 2008 (EST)
::It's still a recently coined phrase coined by someone at Conservapedia. [[User:RWest|RWest]] 13:42, 8 February 2008 (EST)